Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The Cornerstone Part 2

In this section of this major post I will go over the primary evidence that makes me wonder if Bristol Palin's pregnancy during the campaign in the fall of 2008 was "as reported." I wish to be very clear that I am totally baffled by this.

As I said in my previous post, some of the evidence that points to everything being exactly as represented is very compelling. Yet, there is more - presented here - that just makes you go "Whoa!"

(Most every picture in this post can be made larger by clicking on it.)

Evidence which raises questions concerning whether Bristol Palin was actually pregnant, commencing in late spring 2008 and culminating with the birth of Tripp Johnston on December 27, 2008.

1. The open secret: One of the first "proofs" that Bristol was pregnant was an article published within 48 hours of the announcement that Palin was going to be the running mate that took a sort of "happy-go-lucky" spin on the Bristol pregnancy. Purporting to have interviewed several "locals" in Wasilla, the pregnancy was termed "an open secret." But there is in fact considerable evidence that the "open secret" was not all that open and was a lot more of a secret than has been put forth with that casual ("It's no big deal.") announcement.

First, we have the teens' MySpace and Facebook pages. Many pages are private, but many are not. (Or at least were not months ago – some have since gone private.) My research assistants have poured over the comments on scores of pages. There is not a single mention of Bristol being pregnant anywhere. If the secret was really nothing to fuss over, if the couple was openly together, if at least one set of parents were "happy" about the news, the absence of any mention regarding this open secret concerning the impending parenthood of these two popular kids seems impossible to explain.

Some kids in Bristol's circle have literally thousands of comments on their MySpace pages in 2-3 years. Many girls have babies, and chatter about baby showers and pregnancies, while maybe not exactly commonplace, is also not rare either. Levi's sister, Mercede, also was a very popular young lady. Yet not even a mention by the soon-to-be auntie that her brother, someone she is close enough to to have his name tattooed on her wrist, was going to be a daddy? Nope. Not a one.

This would make sense if the Palin family had asked the Johnston family to keep the news quiet, but, to repeat, the newspaper article published on takes the diametrically opposite position: that the news was an "open secret," and no big deal. This group of kids regularly posts photographs of themselves engaged in blatantly illegal behavior. In the past, Levi's relationships with other girls had been discussed, in sometimes "TMI" detail. In the face of this, the absence of a single acknowledgment or comment from a single Wasilla teen of the Levi / Bristol relationship OR pregnancy seems odd to say the least.

Second, I have in my possession emails which prove that an ADN reporter was still looking into the questions concerning Trig's origins in July 2008. The timing of this has always been significant to me, because it is well before Sarah Palin was picked as VP nominee, yet nearly three months after Trig's birth. There's no evidence whatsoever that the ADN reporter who was actively looking for information about the birth story in Wasilla ever heard that Bristol was pregnant, even though by mid-July she would have been four months. Certainly, when the story broke in September, ADN made no reference to the fact that they had already had the information.

Third, former ADN editor Michael Carey gave an interview with PBS on September 2nd. This is not some pajama-clad blogger in his parents' basement. This is a well-connected former editor of the Anchorage Daily News who had been sent by the ADN to Minnesota to cover the convention. He's asked point blank about Bristol being pregnant and he's very matter of fact.

Had HE ever heard that Bristol Palin was pregnant? No, Carey had not heard that Bristol was pregnant as of September 1 at all. But he had heard that Sarah had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol the previous spring. And he'd heard it LONG before the news broke on the Internet, at this point about four or five days previously.

I think his comments are so important that I am going to include them here verbatim.

MICHAEL CAREY: Well, I'm not there; I'm here. And I have not -- I'll give you an example of how this took people by surprise. On Friday, I went into work and started working on this particular story about the -- about Palin becoming vice president. But in the middle of the afternoon, the editor, Pat Doherty, said, would you like to go to Minneapolis? I said, yes. That's about what I knew at that point and none of us knew that Bristol Palin was pregnant. We didn't know anything.

I mean, I think there have been in the Daily News and some other reporting sort of the thought that, oh, yeah, this was common knowledge among certain people in Wasilla. People have said that, that being the governor's hometown. But I don't think that -- in a newsroom, as interested and gossip and good stories as ours, I did not hear this. I heard the other story, which is the fake pregnancy story. And maybe you want to go on to that at some point.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that --

MICHAEL CAREY: The other part of the soap opera.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that seems to have been what smoked out the Bristol Palin story, the attempt to put the first story to rest that came. Tell us more about the first one, which I guess was highlighted on the Daily Kos website.

MICHAEL CAREY: Yeah, that's been -- that story has been around for quite a while. I first heard it when a lawyer who I like very much and is a very smart guy presented this to me as the absolute truth.

RAY SUAREZ: That is, that Governor Palin was not pregnant?

MICHAEL CAREY: No, and that the whole thing was faked because she was covering up for her daughter who was pregnant. And the daughter was having the child and Sarah claimed it was her child and faked the pregnancy so as not to embarrass the daughter and not to create I guess political backlash for some kind of conservative values concern.

He is calling seriously into question the idea that it was "common knowledge." He specifically states that he does NOT think it was common knowledge based on the fact that, in their newsroom, he never heard it.

2. Bristol's appearance raises questions. Before I continue I need to say categorically that I am not happy that I am having to sit here, analyzing the potentially pregnant body of a 17-18 year old girl. Bristol Palin is younger than my own daughters and I find this very distasteful. But … I believe that it is precisely this emotion that the Palins had hoped to engender by "throwing Bristol under the bus," i.e., that reporters would be just too squeamish to ask the hard questions about and to take a good long look at the physiology of a pregnant minor.

First, Bristol's bust on the night of 9/3/2008 was padded or enhanced in some way. Analysis of many high quality photographs show this unequivocally, and she's padded so heavily that it borders on the ludicrous. Whoever dressed that MINOR, that CHILD that night should be put in prison. I mean that quite literally.

Contrast to this picture, which at first glance seems like a shot of John McCain, with Gov. Palin and Piper. Yes, but look at the background. It's a perfect profile shot of Bristol, emerging from behind Levi's body. Her bust is literally larger than her head. There is no way, based on other photographs of her, that this can be natural.

She is not only much larger that night than she was just ten days earlier (in spite of having a windbreaker on in this picture,

it's clear that the bust is not there), in several shots it appears as if the padding has slipped and that she is actually lopsided.

My experience with my own pregnancies and the pregnancies of countless other women is that bust size typically increases early in pregnancy ("bigger boobs" is often the first sign of pregnancy women report, far earlier than any discernable "tummy") and then stays more or less consistent until quite late. Photographs of Bristol from July (when she would have been 17-18 weeks pregnant)

and late August (only ten days prior to the RNC - see above) show no evidence of a bust anywhere close to the size on 9/3. Photographs of her from later in pregnancy (we don't have many but we have a few) also show that "bolster bosom" is gone.

Why would you pad/enhance the bust of a young woman who is genuinely pregnant? It is what it is. If she's really pregnant, why would it even occur to anyone to make her look more pregnant? If Bristol pregnancy was "as reported" on September 5th, in due time, the baby would be born, the veracity of the Palin/McCain's statements to the press would be born out. But putting any sort of padding or artificial enhancer on her at all can only have one goal: to give the appearance of something that is not true. So what would that be?

Second, we have very few photographs / screen shots of Bristol Palin during the campaign. She does not appear to have traveled with campaign nearly as extensively as Willow, Piper, and Trig, but she was present on at least a couple of occasions. In one brief sequence filmed, we believe, around the 15th of October, Bristol is shown some time apart on the same day. The size and shape of Bristol's pregnancy appears to change between the time of the two shots. In addition, the motion of her body as she deplanes seems odd. Pregnant women in their seventh months go down stairs slowly, leaning back slightly, protecting their bellies. Bristol bounces down the stairs. (Watch for the very brief clip beginning around the :35 point.)

Watch the motion of the belly as she moves. I cannot say that it appears natural, though it's hard to put my finger on just exactly what is "wrong."

Now look at the screen grab of her as she gets back off the bus to get on the plane.

To my eye, the belly seems to have increased in size – rather significantly. Although I do not know who far apart in time these two shots were taken, it hardly matters if it's half an hour or three hours. Based on Bristol's clothes, I believe it is the same day.

Third, in one additional quick shot of Bristol that is available, she is shown walking into church services on December 10th.

She would have been in her ninth month of pregnancy, approximaly two weeks prior to Tripp's birth. Look at the screen grab carefully. It appears as if she could push the vest, which does not appear to be a maternity jacket, closed easily.

She is certainly NO bigger than she was in this shot,

two months earlier, and may be smaller which defies all laws of pregnancy physiology. (Can that vest be pushed closed? I don't think so.)

She does not move like a pregnant woman. Pregnant women have a very distinctive "gait" due to connective tissue in the pelvis softening and loosening in response to late pregnancy hormones. This has nothing to do with age or the number of children a woman has had, though in subsequent pregnancies, the effect is usually apparent sooner. But not Bristol. She's really hoofin' it over the icy path, and when she sees the cameras she almost starts to run. Contrast her gait with some of the people (who presumably are not pregnant) walking into church ahead of the Palins. They walk gingerly and catiously over the ice. In my opinion, Bristol Palin does not appear as if she is nine months pregnant here, two weeks away from giving birth.

3. The announcement of the birth itself was handled to a way that can only be termed bizarre.

First, on Monday December 29th, People Magazine broke the story on the website: According to Bristol's great aunt, (so it would be the great great aunt of the child) the child had been born in Alaska. The aunt lives in Washington state and had learned of this by email. Initial reports had several different weights and dates, but finally consensus seemed to agree on 12/27. Numerous other news outlets, including the Anchorage Daily News followed suit on the announcement by quoting the People source. As far as I can tell, to this day, not a single media source ever verified the information in Alaska independently.

Read this again: The news that Tripp Palin was born came from a great-great aunt who had learned of it via email, had never seen the child, who lived in another state, and who had been cold-called by a national publication, which then posted it on their website. No hospital was ever named as his place of birth. No happy fellow Wasilla resident ever mentioned anywhere that "Bristol Palin had her baby the same day as me, and isn't that cool?" Hospital staff are bound by privacy regulations, but other patients are not. Not one word ever leaked to the press that Bristol had given birth, even though Palins and Johnstons and other of Bristol's friends should have been trouping in and out of the hospital for 1-2 days. But no one was ever spotted by anyone.

Second, then the Governor's Office refused to give an unequivocal statement on the birth for another 48 hours. Citing "privacy" they would not confirm or deny that the birth had even taken place. Privacy? PRIVACY???? Good God! This is coming from the woman who told about six billion people that her seventeen year old daughter was pregnant in the first place, instead of, oh, having her doctor give a news conference or releasing a birth certificate on September 1st. It's an absurd hypocritical construct, and she should have been called on it on the spot. Instead, everyone in the press just sort of hung around, dumbfounded.

Tripp's birth was – as I said – the Cornerstone of Sarah's "I'm Trig's mom" campaign. This was her BIG PROOF. This should have been a HUGE moment for her on a HUGE day. She's vindicated! And then the baby is born, and they won't even discuss it?

Critics will point out that it was Bristol's baby and she WAS entitled to privacy. There's no dispute there when it comes to personal details of the birth and photographs of the child: It's Bristol's call. But considering just how much was riding on this for Sarah, the fact that she did not give a personal simple statement to the press as new grandmother standing in the hall of a hospital, (even if the baby was never shown) is odd at best.

Sarah could have done this on her own, regardless of Bristol's wishes. Even if Bristol did not want her baby shown, would it even have occurred to Bristol to tell her mother she could not stand in the hall of the hospital, and pronounced herself, "Happy, tired, and proud."? Considering how on many other occasions Sarah has behaved like the pitbull she calls herself – on steroids - Palin's keeping herself completely out of the public eye in the days after Tripp's birth was very inconsistent with her general behavior. At least with Trig's birth, we got Chuck and Sally Heath in the hall of Mat-Su hospital holding a baby. With Tripp we got nothing.

4. No one outside the family has ever come forward to say they saw the baby prior to the Greta Van Sustern interview on February 18th, almost seven weeks after the birth.

Initially the explanation was that no photos could be taken because Bristol was negotiating with several publications for "first photos." But like so many other stories, this one was just dropped. Was this nothing but a delaying tactic? No publication appears to ever have gotten the touted "first photos." Bristol was possibly paid something by People for the photos of her and Tripp connected with her graduation… almost five months later… but the fantastic price tags that had been used to explain why there were no early photos of Tripp with either Sarah or Bristol, well, that story just faded into oblivion.

John Ziegler, who did an interview with Sarah Palin on January 7, would not confirm that he had seen (or even heard) a newborn in the house. He stated that he saw Bristol, and mentions specifically that she was post-partum, but when asked by me point blank if he ever saw a baby, would not say he had. I have always personally found it inexplicable that Sarah didn't at least show the baby to Ziegler that day, and possibly have a photo taken of her holding her new grandson, even if they chose not show the baby's face.

5. There was a significant discrepancy that has never been followed up concerning Levi Johnston's whereabouts in the days after the birth. The Anchorage Daily News reported on January 5th that Levi's lack of either high school diploma or GED rendered him ineligible for the electrician's apprentice job he had, and that he had quit and according to his father, that evening (Monday night, i.e., January 5th) was flying back from the North Slope. But according to Levi's mother he had spent the entire first week plus after Tripp's birth on 12/27 at the Palin home taking care of newborn Tripp. So where WAS Levi? With Tripp and Bristol? Or at work hundreds of miles outside of Wasilla? Seems like the ADN placed him, with eyewitnesses, on the North Slope. So... what's the real truth here? (Of course, all this indicates is that Levi was not in Wasilla the first week in January, 2009. Since in other places, it's already been alleged that things were off between Levi and Bristol before the birth, it's entirely possible that the "lie" is that Levi was actively involved with the baby, at the Palin's home, after the child was born. However, what that still leaves us with is that a whole lotta fibbin' is going on somewhere.)

5. Levi seems to have a curious lack of photographs of himself with Tripp. When asked for one, on March 16th (more than 2 1/2 months after the birth announcement) as he sat in front of his house in his truck if he had a photo of Tripp, he produced an ultrasound.

When on the Tyra Banks show in April to discuss presumably his relationship with Bristol and his son, one of the photos provided to the Tyra Banks show was of Levi holding, not Tripp, but Trig the previous spring (almost a year earlier.) No photo of Levi, with Bristol and Tripp has ever been released, even though according to the official "line," the young couple's breakup did not occur until well over a month after the baby was born.

6. It is inexplicable to me that Sarah Palin, given her family values philosophies, has never chosen to do any sort of informative, positive media event on the fact that she and her daughter had babies less than a year apart, with both of them having made difficult decisions. Ladies' Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, or one of the Christian family publications would have been thrilled to have the opportunity to do a sit-down with Bristol and Sarah jointly. So what's the problem? Sarah has never shied away from publicity (she certainly used Trig relentlessly during the campaign), and Bristol has shown herself open to media as well: she agreed to the GSV interview on Feb. 15, and did interviews and appearances for Candies in April. The silence is deafening.

There are other discrepancies as well. Sarah's own demeanor towards Levi was very very cold in an interview less than two weeks after the election, even though the official line is that everything was fine between the young couple and with the families until after the birth. In several interviews, Sherry Johnston as well as her son, can't seem to get basic details straight. You get the sense with Sherry on numerous occasions that she's talking about a baby... but not the baby that was supposedly born on December 27. She tries to do time frames, and she never quite gets it right. And Levi, how old WAS Bristol when she got pregnant? 16 no uhh 18. (If Tripp's pregnancy was as reported, she would have been 17.)

All in all, what's the old saying? "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." I think that so many people have told so many lies for so long that I wonder if anyone knows the truth.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy, like the one Sarah presented to the world in early 2008, does not add up. Unlike Sarah's, which I am sure was not "as presented" I honestly do not know what to conclude about Bristol's. Photographic evidence, prior to the announcement of the pregnancy, seems to indicate she WAS pregnant. It also shows clear indication of obfuscation: bolster bust on the night of September 3, 2008. Palin's behavior around the time of the "birth," seems inexplicably disinterested in what should have been a huge event for her, yet there is a baby who appears to be the right age for having been born around the end of 2008.

69 comments:

I always felt weird talking abour BP's rack, but my instincts always said they looked more like nursing boobs than pregnant boobs -- especially the growing and decreasing. IF she were nursing Trig, she would have had a hard time doing that on RNC day and would have been ENGORGED and LEAKING! IF she were a nursing mom, she would have been much bigger that day and needing to pad to prevent tell-tell leakage. If that were the case, I'd hate SP even more for making her nursing daughter go through that pain.

How odd, I remember saying to my mom on that night at the RNC Convention 'wow, Sarah Palin's daughter has a strange looking rack.' Now, I have to mention that I'm a 23 year old female (at the time I was 22). I didn't think anything of it at the time, but now I think its just awfully strange.

I have to admit, while I am fully with you on Sarah faking her pregnancy, I'm not so sure I buy all of the arguments you posit in your "Cornerstone" posts. I'm going to read through them again though, just to make sure I'm not missing anything or misreading you. Regardless, the time you've put into these two posts (the one from today and yesterday) is impressive. I think the statements from ADN's EiC are pretty remarkable. You should try to get a hold of that lawyer if you can...

Very interesting. This all looks to me like a lot of effort to make bristol's pregnancy look more advanced than it was. I can just picture it - Sarah all distracted and busy the days before the convention, and Bristol trying to do what her mom told her to do and make herself look more pregnant. Not doing a good job of it, but her mom too distracted to notice, and everyone around too squeamish to say anything. It makes me really sad. Especially when you think of the pictures of her holding trig close and looking so beautiful and fragile.

I'm seconding Jen's remarks. As I worked my way thru parts 1 & 2, and looked at the pics, it was the first thing that came to mind - she is nursing.

I believe that Trig is Bristol's and was born earlier than reported. I do suspect that the original plan was for him to be adopted, but the DS made that too difficult to pull off in a timely enough fashion to protect our darling Sarah's rep. Plan B, SP's fake pregnancy. While Sarah was out pretending to be preggers, Bristol and Levi were home, hiding out, and taking care of Triggie Bear. I'm sure there were plenty of times they were home alone, and hey - shit happens. Oops - pregnant again. I think Tripp was born later than announced, but dates were fudged to accommodate SP's lies and make it look real. Good job Audrey and team. Keep up the good work. Sarah will get outed. And we'll collectively clink those champagne glasses online.

I agree with Rationalist that this looks more like an effort to make Bristol be farther along than she was...except the RNC photos. There it looks like they were trying to hide the fact Bristol may have been nursing Trig...and also by making her boobs bigger, it would possibly make her belly not seem pregnant--trying to get that slimming effect going...(oh, and to add to that, just drape a blanket and a baby over everything and voila! A non-pregnant, non-nursing teen)

From everything I've read and heard about DS babies--that they have low sucking ability, and often have trouble "latching on" to a human breast rather than a faster-flowing rubber nipple--I'm willing to go with the concept that BP was pumping breast milk with which TriG was fed, via bottle, for awhile at least. We certainly saw enough bottles, and $P made enough references to using a breast pump to wig out most men.

However, I think that the RNC "bolster bust" was intended to make BP look farther along in her pregnancy than she actually was. Remember, the "five months pregnant" meme came straight from the McCain campaign staff. No doctor or even a family member said when BP was "due."

In addition, if BP was both pregnant and pumping breast milk at the RNC, she would have had to take off that tight dress AND the padding in order to pump. It must have been excruciating as well as mortifying.

There is still the curious comment left by Mercede on someone else's MySpace on January 7, 2009.

I'm heavily editing it for spelling, but this is exactly what she said:

"Levi is in a bit of a haze right now ... I'm now allowed to see my nephew and my mom isn't, either. We aren't Palins so therefore we are white trash and Bristol doesn't want her baby around us. So mom and I are really upset over it; I just hope Levi pulls his head out of his butt and lets us see our nephew and her grandbaby. But I will tell you the whole story when I see you."

The ellipsis was in the orignal message.

This implies that at the very least, Levi heavily believes or knows that Tripp exists.

If the ADN is correct, he was still on the North Slope. He probably wouldn't have seen Tripp. But yet, he, his sister, and his mother believe that Bristol has given birth to him.

This does verify, of course, that if Tripp really exists at this point, the Johnston clan was not there for his birth.

Just a couple of thought myself ...Audrey, on the snapshot of Bristol coming down the steps from the plane and the tummy not appearing "right" - to me the tummy is soft looking. A pregnant tummy is hard or rather firm. In this shot, hers looks soft, not necessarily moving, but like it could at any moment. And yes, the shot of her getting off the bus wearing the same clothes, seems to show a larger tummy. Is she carrying a baby's (Trig's) milk bottle in both pictures (in her left hand)?

Regarding the picture of her walking into the church (shortly before Tripp was born?) and this picture can be definitely dated correctly, she is almost breaking into a run. A 9-months pregnant woman cannot move that fast and fluidly and especially not on icy pavement.

My thoughts about why Bristol and her MOTHER did not do mother/daughter/babies pictures and interviews have to do with what I perceive to be a total lacking of mother/daugther relationship with Sarah Palin. I have wondered for months now why Sarah's own mother never seems to make a statement (in defense of her daughter and the media's perceived treatment of her; about the birth(s) of the babies;) about her DAUGHTER. Chuck Heath does and of course when he does he seems to let slip interesting tidbits (about the water breaking with SP, about the gifts that were filling the house, about Levi), but Mrs. Heath - nothing. If I felt my daughter was being treated unfairly in the media, I would be calling various members of the press, and that is not to negate what my husband would also be doing, but as a "mother bear" as SP seems to liken herself to, I would be making statements. I think that Sarah does not have a very good relationship with her MOTHER and does not cultivate a close mother/daughter relationship with Bristol or Willow. Piper is little; she is a prop much like Trig is. And she is too little to be some kind of threat? to SP.

Jen, (having breastfed both my babies, and for some duration)especially in the first few months, there would be no way Bristol could be that engorged (and leaking) and not be in such pain that she would either have to nurse the baby immediately or express the milk. It is painful, one becomes flushed if not relieved. There is no way that she could be that engorged (she is huge!) and sit smiling through a night at the convention.

One other observation(sorry for the long post; but I hope you all read it) - at the zoo (a couple of weeks before SP was announced as VP candidate?) - Bristol definitely does not look like she has a large bust PLUS she is wearing blue jeans/denim. Unless these are maternity jeans (and from the tight fit of the legs, I don't think they are) there is no way a young girl in her first pregnancy can be 4 months along and button a pair of denim jeans over her tummy especially if the tummy looks like it did a couple of weeks later in the grey dress. I was tiny when I got pregnant with my son (my first child) and the first thing to go out of my wardrobe were my jeans. And the fall of the jacket though it is long, is not hiding a tummy as big as the tummy in the grey dress.

The only thing that has made sense to me about the distorted padding in the gray RNC dress is that she was nursing, probably having to stop, and maximally padded herself for that appearance to prevent any leaks. My guess is that Sarah was more concerned with making sure she didn't visibly leak than the extreme weirdness of the appearance of her bosom. And by the time any one else saw her dressed up like that ready to appear at the convention, well, who is going to approach the pregnant teenager that they have just met and inquire about what's up with her strange shape?

I think Bristol and Sarah also had her wear that inappropriately tight dress to begin with to show off her pregnancy. I think she does look authentically pregnant although perhaps not as far along as we were told. And so they put her in a tight dress to show off that pregnant shape. No one with any dress sense would have put her in that awkward gray dress when there are so many cute maternity dresses available. I really think there can be only one reason for that.

The horrible combination of the too tight dress plus over-padding her bust to prevent leaks created the abomination we all saw at the RNC that night. I feel terrible that those photos will follow Bristol forever. No doubt as a reminder of the lies and distortions of her mother.

Audrey -I'm not sure if you were trying to compare and contrast ALL the photos of Bristol during her pregnancy with Tripp. If so, there are at least two that you missed --

1) Sarah and Bristol in a convenience store aisle with Bristol reaching for diapers (for Trig). I remember this photo because we were all analyzing the Pepsi caps behind them to see if she could have actually been pregnant with Trig in the picture, instead of Tripp.

2) There is a video of Sarah and Bristol in a checkout line at Walmart. Bristol looks VERY pregnant. She is wearing a tight gray shirt and holding Trig. When Sarah sees the cameras, she grabs Trig away to hold him herself.

What are your thoughts on those two pictures and how do they play into your analysis?

One other reflection on why a cover-up of either pregnancy, especially the first one, and of Sarah Palin trying to stop the spread of the rumor that Bristol was pregnant by announcing that she was: although it was not until August that she was tapped by McCain, remember that there have been reports that her name had been bandied about as a possible choice maybe as early as February 2008 when she met him at the Governor's Conference in Washington, D.C. (with the picture of all the governor's on the step of the Capitol and SP does NOT appear pregnant!)

Wow. I knew there was some weirdness with Bristol's (2nd) pregnancy, but I had never put it all in chronological order that way. The giant bosom/little belly, then big belly/normal bosom, smaller belly@ 9 months sequence was stunning. It wasn't just *some* weirdness--it was MONDO weirdness.

I feel so badly for Bristol, Trig, Levi, Tripp--not to mention that poor little Piper child.

Sarah will reap what she has sown. Unfortunately, what she has sown involves innocent children that will end up paying a heavy price for their mother's ego and deaf/dumb/blind ambition. It's so terribly sad.

My thought is that Bristol was pregnant and to prove that she was 5 months or more pregnant they used padding to make her look even more pregnant. She was probably only about 12-16 weeks pregnant at the RNC and Tripp was probably not born until mid-late January after Levi got back from the slopes.

I still believe that Trig was born before April 18th but this date was more convenient for Sarah to present him (after a business trip - giving birth on a weekend - needing to be at that Energy conference so she could raise her hand for VP) Just think how desperate she would have looked if she would have left her pre-mature DS baby to travel to TX to speak at a conference. I say not a good showing for strong family values.

I believe Bristol gave birth to Trig in January or early Feb 08. It's possible he still could have been a preemie - not due until March. Maybe they weren't aware that Trig had DS until his birth. Or maybe they were told but didn't actually believe it until he was born. The plan was probably to put Trig up for adoption but the DS caused a change of plans. My assumption is that Todd was against Sarah faking the pregnancy and taking on another baby and this is what intensified the tension in their marriage. The rumor that Todd pulling a gun on Levi in the Summer of 08 was just Todd's way of venting that he had to take care of Levi's responsibility, Trig.

Levi and Bristol did not want the responsibility of a DS baby so they signed all parental rights over to Todd and Sarah and made a decision to work on having a 'perfect' baby in the future. And there we have it; Tripp was conceived. And according to Sarah in the Tyra and LKL interviews Levi always wanted a son to hunt with. I am sure he thought he couldn't hunt with Trig. But remember all the emphasis Levi and Bristol put on Tripp being healthy and 'perfect'. I just don't recall many teenagers questioning whether their baby will be healthy or even bragging about it. It's sort of a given to them. It's more about how cute and precious their babies are. But not with Bristol and Levi. The important thing with their 2nd pregnancy was that the baby was born healthy.

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. The comments are very insightful and many of you ask good questions about the breastfeeding, possible timing discrepancies, etc. Someone else asked questions about two other photos of Bristol during the pregnancy.

I had thought about some of these things while writing the initial post and simply left them out because of the sheer length. I will do a third post tomorrow on this topic, addressing the breastfeeding / weaning questions as well as a few other things.

It almost looks like Sarah's fake baby bump was put into service as Bristol's fake RNC Convention chest. :)

I doubt if Bristol would have been nursing at that time. If she had relinquished Trig to her mother and father, would she really be interested in breastfeeding him? And doesn't breastfeeding provide strong protection against getting pregnant? ...especially immediately following childbirth.

I think we should look at the picture at the airport the day before the RNC. I thought it was strange that Bristol was wearing a belt because the waist is the first thing to go. That picture should be compared to the grey dress picture.

My main thought when being jarred by Bristol's appearance at the RNC was to remind myself that they had all been dressed and prepped by professional handlers, a fact that was abundantly confirmed later with the clothes scandal.

So the odd tight dress on Bristol -- which looked (improbably) as though it had been taken in, when it should have been let out -- struck me as deliberate by the handlers, as was her giant bosom, as was the jr preppie look of Piper (vs her earlier ragamuffn odd clothes), as was Levi's nice suit, etc.

Somebody made Bristol look like that on purpose, after a lot of thought, right down to the draped baby blanket -- which was rarely over the baby (in his bare feet), only over Bristol.

So all this works with what you are saying, Audrey. Fishy.

If we assumed Bristol was pregnant but not v far along, and that she colluded with SP to seem 5 mo along at the RNC, does that fit the basic facts we trust to be true?

Okay, this is just soooooo strange. I myself do not think that Bristol's breast size at the convention was from breastfeeding Trig. If you look at any of her earlier pictures she is much much smaller. I have never seen breasts grow that large just because you haven't pumped/nursed. I might have gotten slightly larger but didn't grow ten cup sizes larger!

This whole thing is just beyond odd. You have two women who expand & contract on a daily basis. Bristol's pregnancy is just as odd as Sarah's (if she was indeed pregnant). If they weren't taking two babies out in public right now I am not sure I would believe either of them were ever pregnant!

DaisyDem -You make an interesting point that didn't phase me at first (because I just accept that Bristol is Trig's mom!). But why would Trig's "sister" Bristol be carrying around his bottles all the time? I was 13 when my sister was born, and I never carried around her bottles in public. I wasn't her caregiver - my mom was! But then again, my mom wasn't a self-absorbed nutbag. To me it's just another clue that Bristol is mommy.

Hello, this is my first post, though I've been reading your blog for a couple months or so now.After all of the pictures and theories, I believe the most likely scenario is that Bristol was pregnant with Trip, was going to give him up for adoption until they discovered he had DS. This wasn't discovered until maybe February in an ultrasound. Since a young woman doesn't have high chances of birth defects, there wouldn't have been an early check, like an amniocentesis. Then, Sarah decides to fake the pregnancy, and starts wearing all the black clothes and colorful, big scarves, in preparation for the lie that she was hiding her pregnancy. I do believe Trig was born early, and born on or just before April 18, 2008, and not much earlier as others think. Why? Because if he had been born earlier, why the fake "mad dash home" from the Texas conference? That raised ALOT of questions, and wouldn't have been necessary if they were planning a pretend "later birth" all along. Only a real emergency (Bristol going into labor almost a month early) would have necessitated this mad dash from Texas to a rural hospital in Alaska.But, I think it's likely that Bristol was pregnant a 2nd time, with Trip. There is too much evidence. But there is also evidence that she was not as far along as presented. I think she was at least 1, possibly close to 2, months less far along with Trip than claimed. Maybe the shotgun was when Todd found out about baby #2? Anyway, I think that the birth on Dec. 27 was fake, and Trip was born in mid to late January. Either Bristol went into labor naturally, or she was induced (if she was the full 40 weeks, and they didn't want to wait longer), or even maybe she had a C-section (if she was actually not due till more like February, and they *really* didn't want the baby to look that far off in age from a baby born in Dec.!).To me, if any of this is true, this scenario makes the most sense. I think the second pregnancy was as accidental as the first one. Probably Bristol heard you can't get pregnant again right after giving birth, especially if you are nursing, so she and Levi were careless with protection....again.Thanks for all your work Audrey! I feel so bad for the Palin kids, and only want Sarah exposed for the pathological liar that she is.

I remember the discussion when the pregnancy was announced: Bristol had to be five months pregnant in order for it to seem impossible for her to have given birth to Trig. Any less pregnant, and she could have given birth to Trig and then gotten pregnant. Any more pregnant, and she'd be much larger than she was. Sarah needed a five-months-pregnant Bristol at the RNC, and voila!

These latest two posts are disturbing to me. What Audrey is saying makes sense but whoa - if this woman made her daughter do what is being postulated here she is really f***ed up. Those children should be taken away from her if this turns out to be true.

More astute analysis and as always, even more questions now, Audrey! When the truth finally comes out, we'll get to see who guessed best.

A couple thoughts - Bristol's tummy at the RNC when she was supposedly "about 5 months" was not large enough. I do think Bristol was pregnant but not as far along as the anonymous aide stated. Note that we only have the information about how far along Bristol was from someone in the McCain campaign who didn't give his name. No subsequent or concurrent statement came from the Palins that corroborated the date.

The mid-October image of Bristol and Sarah at the big box store, where Bristol looks pregnant and obviously so, could reflect a 5-month pregnancy then. The tight gray dress images at the RNC? Not so much. Just spend some time looking at the scads of images of pregnant women online for reference.

The bolster-bust... I concur wholeheartedly with Daisydem, having breast-fed all three of my own children. There is no way you could sit, leaking into some sort of padding, with your ducts swollen and hard, holding a baby that you've been nursing... no way. The physical pain would have been excruciating. I have no freaking clue why Bristol was padded like she was, but those were not her breasts. And she was not nursing anyone by that time. She may have been enlarged as a result of her new pregnancy, but she wasn't nursing.

I'm thinking at this point that Bristol was just very recently post-partum during the GVS interview where "Tripp" was introduced. But that wasn't Tripp that Sarah produced, carrying the child out with her mincing steps and phony cooing voice. Tripp was probably born late Jan or early Feb 09. Sarah borrowed a baby for show that day. The whole moment when she appears with the baby is so strange.

If you look at the pic of Levi holding a naked Tripp, he doesn't look much larger than when we were introduced to him, yet that picture was taken how much later?

Gah, we need a new timeline with baby pictures on it.

I remain of the opinion that Trig was not a 5-week preemie on April 21 when he made his debut. And that Bristol did not give birth to Tripp in December 08, else we would have seen -her- sooner than February 09.

"Dammit Bristol, as the mama grizzly, I have to remind you: I faked a gosh-darn pregnancy to protect you in April, now it's your turn to fake the stage of your pregnancy for me. Now trust me here: no one knew I was fakin'... I'm great with the fake hair, and I was great with the fake belly. Listen up. You're gonna strap on some fake boobs... now hush up! If anyone points out that they look fake I'll sic someone on 'em for lookin' at my statutory-rape age daughter for lookin' at 'em. And speaking of statutory rape... I was really nice to not go makin' trouble with you and your no-good boyfriend last time. Don't make my mama grizzly get all up in your busine....""ALRIGHT!!! I'll do it. I hate you!"

Not saying she WAS nursing but to address a couple of comments, when I nursed but would be away from my son or the pump for a half hour past the regular nursing time I would engorge BADLY and be an entire cup size larger. And it hurt like a mother (ha ha) but in public I did my best to not draw attention to myself. Once I was with my mom's night out group and I mentioned I need to get home and a friend looked at me and said, "Yah you do!"

The obvious motive for Bristol's huge appearance at the RNC was to accentuate the narrative of her current pregnancy, which was put out at "about five months" to eliminate her from consideration as Trig's mother so our crazy conspiracy theory could be debunked.

Nearly everyone posting, including Audrey, seems convinced that this effort proves that it must be Bristol after all. And if not for Tripp's birth at the end of December, you'd probably be right.

So now the calendar problems send everyone into another circuit on the hampster wheel.

The other possibility -- a more likely one -- is that they attacked a general correct theory where it was most vulnerable: WHERE IT WAS WRONG. It's just like how OJ got off: if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

You can't fit two births into eight months. It's hard enough to fit two into 10 months. You just can't. Look for someone else. There must be another motive, unless it's Willow after all.

You can convince yourselves but you can't convince anyone else. It's time for all of us to admit that we don't know who gave birth to Trig, but based on the evidence it's probably not Sarah Palin.

Another detailed, cogent, logical and very well written post. Thank you! I am patiently (okay, maybe not so patiently) waiting for something close to the truth to come out about both Trig's and Tripp's births.

And, it strikes me that in his interview with PBS last September Michael Carey was essentially daring other media sources to pursue the fake pregnancy story: "I heard the other story, which is the fake pregnancy story. And maybe you want to go on to that at some point."

Whooo, so much to think about. Bristol looking smaller and firmer in the belly two months later is pretty amazing! I've always thought Bristol's appearance at the RNC was bizarre. It is a good theory that she might have been padded at the RNC to prevent leaking from nursing and that the dress was tight to emphasize her pregnancy. On the other hand I have a hard time believing that Bristol could be such a dedicated nursing mother that she would still be full force at least 4 months later--so much so that skipping a session would inflate her that much. The photos taken close to the time of the incredible inflated bosom are soooo different.

Well, for the record, I do think Trig/g was born earlier than April 18th to Bristol. I go with the theory that they didn't realize he had downs until after he was born leading to a change in plans.

I wish we understood the urgency that resulted in the "wild ride". Perhaps Trig was having to be discharged from a hospital somewhere and they didn't want any more time to slip by before presenting him because he had to look newborn enough?

Mercede and her mother being told they were not allowed to see Tripp was clearly to cover for the fact he wasn't born yet and Levi could very well have been helping with that subterfuge. His mom isn't so good at keeping her lies straight so it was best to leave her out of the loop.

I can't remember where I read that a bunch of Bristol's friends came to the hospital and Mercede was mad about being left out? Was that a planted story or something verifiable? I was totally sure that Tripp was born later than reported until I read that.

This quest is like being in a fog of lies and trying to find something solid. Honestly, I think the telling of multiple versions of events may be deliberate to create confusion!!!

Yes, this post reopens doubts I was beginning to forget about. The puzzler of not showing Tripp when they needed to...the excuse that they were shopping for the best photo deal but no photos ever showed up so that was NOT TRUE and left us back at square one. And I never bought it anyway, because they should have spent no more than a couple of days holding out for the highest bidder, and really should have negotiated before the birth, because they needed to show Tripp asap!

I don't have so much of a problem with Bristol's quick trip on the ice two weeks before birth - I climbed an apricot tree and harvested fruit two weeks before giving birth - but I do have a problem with her not appearing to be 9 months pregnant.

There are photos of both kids together, right? At the series of farewell hot-dog events?

I am sure Palin didn't give birth to Trig, and I suspect Bristol did because of the rumors in Wasilla that started on their own, before any national or even local blogger attention was paid.

One other theory I have: Bristol was pg but she aborted, which is why she was so adamant about Tripp being HER CHOICE. I remember in the Greta interview with Bristol, she repeated that. Her CHOICE which could mean aborting the pg she was rumored to have, was ended and not by her choice that time.

"Nearly everyone posting, including Audrey, seems convinced that this effort proves that it must be Bristol after all. And if not for Tripp's birth at the end of December, you'd probably be right.

"It's time for all of us to admit that we don't know who gave birth to Trig, but based on the evidence it's probably not Sarah Palin."

But we don't know when Tripp was born. As Audrey has pointed out, there is a lot of craziness about the date of birth, and absolutely no reason to disguise a baby when that baby is Sarah's "proof" that Trig is hers. Common sense, admittedly not a Palin family strong suit, would indicate that a birth announcement be made, an announcement in the local paper from the hospital or birthing center... you know, birth announcements. Like normal people send out with tears of joy, often including snapshots. If Tripp was born, why hide the fact when the whole world knew Bristol was pregnant? Nobody's going to believe the angels brought him on a cloud and laid him beside Bristil while she was asleep, we all knew what was going to happen! It doesn't violate anybody's privacy to say that an announced pregnancy has culminated in a live birth- that's the expectation. So why hide the baby? Because they did hide it. Normal people DO send out snapshots, etc. Even if Bristol didn't want to deal with the press, she could have had a picture taken, and Sarah could have absolutely gloated in being proved right.

I think most of us have already admitted we don't KNOW that Bristol gave birth to Trig- we pretty much acknowledge that it's what we believe, for a variety of reasons.

I just keep wondering why pretend about Trig at all. What was going on that made pretending to give birth seem the logical, in fact the best thing to do? Because I consider the photos prove that Sarah was not pregnant with Trig, and as aforesaid, I don't believe the angels brought him on a cloud. Sarah thought pretending to be pregnant was a good idea. Why? None of the reasons advocated much impress me.

Response to Dangerous -- yes, in fact it is possible to have two babies eight months apart, I met a woman AND her babies who were eight months and one week apart. The first baby was born quite prematurely and(I know it's hard to believe) she got pregnant again right away. The babies were absolute proof. When I met her, the older one was thirteen months and the younger one not quite five months.

I think Mercede's white-trash comments about not seeing the baby were references to TRIG, not Tripp. After all, he was her Triggy-bear/baby brother for quite some time, and she had every right to be ticked-off about not seeing him.

And has anybody mentioned how it was said that these kids -- Bristol and Levi -- were workin' and goin' ta school and takin' care of their baby -- Activities that do not add up in a timeline for Tripp, but certainly do for Trig.

I thought from the first time we saw Bristol with the bolster bosom at the RNC that she was breastfeeding. But if she was breastfeeding then, she had to be breastfeeding all the previous summer. Somebody would have known, and pictures would confirm it (or not). Let's face it, nursing really ties you down, even (or especially) if you're pumping. Can we imagine the teenage Bristol doing that all summer? What a puzzle!

As Palin contines to wreak havoc (while my East Coast friends said she wouldn't last), it's important not to forget the past.

This is a great retelling of what we've already been through. We may never be able to discern the truth from photographs-- mainly because the insane acts perpetrated by Palin defy normal reason.

I agree with Amy1 -- as I did months ago. Considering the magic executed by the stylists on all people on the RNC stage, the appearance of Bristol is no accident. She is meant to SHOW something. Pregnancy is what we saw. So we can safely surmise any mention of how far along she was was a lie.

And I agree with Tabloid Chick (great dialogue) and sjk -- yes, I think you're right. Bristol had no choice but to participate. Blackmailed by her own mom.

But in the end, the only answers will come when someone finally talks-- or slips up. All we can do is not forget the past and keep it online and buzzing.

Palin's actions are twisted. There is no logic. Demonstrating this, the more Palin-lied blogs, the better. Yea, Amy1 and BreePalin! Thanks for joining Audrey and her army to keep the past vivid.

Lynn re "urgency" of the wild ride: Let us remember that that ride was wild only in retrospect. Yes, she produced Trig after it, but there is nothing to suggest that ride home was unusual or urgent in any way.

Until, that is, the reporter brought up the quote from Dad about leaking amniotic fluid -- then SP had to embellish that story on the fly. Here's links to text and audio.

And since she was not PG, why should it have been wild? SP said it was urgent she get home, but there was nothing to suggest urgency. I know I attributed urgency to it: "delivery" immediately afterward; Dad's quote; not realizing the birth had taken place earlier.

SP must have been soooooo amused at how gullible we were, how we worried about all the safety issues, took them seriously. At that time.

Dangerous: did you just say: "Because I consider the photos prove that Sarah was not pregnant with Trig, . . . "

Wasn't it you who was NOT convinced that the photos prove SP was not pregnant? Didn't we have a long series of go-rounds on that very point? Didn't we agree to disagree? Am I mis-remembering it?

Or did some new photos, or new aspects of the photos change your mind? I wish you would tell us what. Because I am seeing it as a fact that really bright people of my acquaintance will look at the photos, listen to me for a minute, and remain uncaring, unconvinced, and stare at my tinfoil hat. So your process of coming to that conclusion is of huge interest to me.

What about the possibility that Trigg is the First Dude's son, but not Sarah's? I believe that someone else on this blog has posited that theory.It makes sense to me---an affair that results in a pregnancy, the revelation that the baby has DS, a needed cover-up, a pay-off to the mistress that includes an agreement to take the baby off her hands, then Sarah's fake pregnancy....

The calendar part of this mystery seems to be giving us all fits, as it was intended to do. My personal conclusion is that the birth dates of both babies have been, and will continue to be, adjusted at will by SP. As are the actual ages of babies we are allowed to see, whether that's the initial photo of Trig, claiming he was a one-month preemie (I never believed it) or the too old/too young photos of Tripp, possible borrowed babies, etc.

But we do have two babies. Bristol seemed mighty paternal with Trig at RNC, ditto Levi. That doesn't prove parentage. Suggests it, but doesn't prove it.

Luckily, the part that is VITAL to our quest is Issue #1: that SP did not deliver Trig as she claimed. That seems very obviously proved. I think the fact that no MSM, and few of my friends, seem to care about that is Issue #2. For me.

It could be that addressing the parentage of Trig and all the weird discrepancies re Tripp will serve to address Issue #2. I hope so.

Issue #1: SP did not deliver Trig (proved)Issue #2: No one much cares. Issue #3: Birth parents of babiesIssue #4: Get MSM to address the HOAX OF THE DECADE, which has big implications re GOP and MSM credibility.

One more thing re breast milk and pumping: we saw bottles all the time for Trig.

If a Mom pumps, all the time, giving that milk (and nothing else) to the baby via bottle -- for the aforementioned reason Mrs TBB gave (the poor sucking/latching on capability of some babies), IT IS A HUGE JOB, made harder because pumps don't work as well as babies.

If a Mom supplements breast milk with formula, it results in a decline in the demand for, and thus production of, breast milk, because babies prefer the sweeter formula, and they prefer the easier-to-suck bottle to the breast. So once again, breast milk supply decreases and one is stuck with the bottle and formula.

(Sometimes a Mom feels she must supplement, as in the case of underweight preemies -- my case -- even though she is a die-hard adherent of the idea that breast milk is best. I might have been wrong to supplement, but that's what the MDs said I must do. By the way, breast-feeding first, then giving the supplemental formula is double the work -- but the main drawback is that it gradually serves to reduce one's breast milk to zero.)

The thought that Bristol would have been exclusively breast-feeding Trig since birth (Feb-->RNC) (and thus pumping at the RNC) seems impossible to me. Therefore, the huge engorgement we were encouraged to see in Bristol's bosom at the RNC seems impossible to attribute to breast milk, and easy to attribute to padding, apart from all the other reasons padding makes sense.

I have only my own experience and a lot of reading to go by for this thought -- but Audrey, as a lactation consultant, you must know whether I am right or wrong.

http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15939Star magazine just released this item....

Star has an eyewitness account of their 15-year-old daughter Willow drinking vodka and smoking pot at a wild house party! "Her eyes were getting more and more glazed as the night went on," says a source.

So Willow is following in Bristol's footsteps and I can forsee another baby in the future....Family Values my behind....

Well, that dress at the convention was hideous and it didn't fit her. I can see her padding the top just to fill it out as it was so oversized. Possibly because it was not a maternity dress and in order to buy a fitted dress large enough to go around her hips and belly, the top ended up being very oversized.

I believe she was pregnant. However I do not believe she was as pregnant as they led us to believe. When she is supposed to be 7 months pregnant...I think she's only 5. 6 tops.

And there lies the rub. The best lies have as much truth in them as possible.

I think she is Trig's mother and delivered earlier than they reported his birth. And I believe she is Tripp's mother and delivered later than they reported his birth. Hence the lack of pictures. Trig a month early, Tripp a month late and there you go.

Amy1 - while I agree that your comments about pumping decreasing milk supply since it's not as effective as a nursing baby are mostly true...

You cannot base an argument on that "fact" because it's not true for every woman. I went back to work when my babies were 8 weeks old and I pumped 3 times a day at work. I got TONS of milk out and my supply didn't decrease. I also nursed my babies whenever I wasn't at work.

Just because we saw bottles for Trigg doesn't mean she wasn't pumping and nursing him in the mornings and at night.

I think her bosom appears padded...but it could just as easily be nursing breasts squeezed into a too-tight dress with lots of breast pads so she could disguise the leaks.

Good detective work. I figured that Bristol was so top heavy because she was breast feeding. She may have added padding- and covered up with blanket- as a precaution of potential breast milk leakage. The padding made engorged breasts look huge. If a photo was taken with breast milk on her top, then it would have given the secret away. The Johnstons have agreed to lie in order to get life long health insurance for this child. And they realize that it is hard to raise a child when you are still a child, especially a child with a serious medical disease. But, I feel bad for Bristol and Levi who must be quited troubled by what has happened.

Audrey, and really everybody, thanks for your observations. I've always felt SP is a barometer for the fraud and hypocracy of our political process. Cheney-style, steady misrepresentation, cloaked in religion and patriotism. Sucking out the power and cash.My blink impression of SP last August -- phony. of BP, as Audrey has encapsulated today -- WTF? with those teats. And after I realized today that someone would stuff a minor for political show and deception, this doesn't seem so outlandish anymore, my initial thoughts were that Trig was drugged during the RNC. Who cares? We all better care, because who TRIGgered or furthered the recent nonesense about "death panels" -- our goofy friend, Spalin. She has 20-30% of the population mesmerized (and all the lies, frauds, duplicities, and inanities won't convince them otherwise).Unfortunately, the MSM and RNC continue to use her celebrity for ratings and money.But we are all here, reasonably waiting for this sordid tale to unravel.Joe

Oh yeah, One more cringeworthy moment from last August.... The look on Cindy McCain's face when she had to hold (the probably sedated) Trig. "Maybe the political wife thing just went too far"This, in contrast to Levi tenderly kissing Trig. JC

I continue to be stopped short in my thinking when I see recent pix of Trig. His resemblance to Piper is undeniable and uncanny. I don't hesitate to say that someone in the Health/Palin clan, and not a distant member, is his mother or father. The only other thing I believe is that SP is not his mother. Beyond that, figuring out Trig's parentage without reliable documents of some sort--birth cert, sworn statement from the attending doc (who's not necessarily CBJ, in my opinion)--is a dead-ender. I respect and admire Audrey's efforts and everyone else's ideas, but I agree with Dangereux that trying to rule BP in or out by dates and bizarre pix is just a hamster wheel. What could any rational person deduce from the fact that this girl crammed, or allowed to be crammed, a very large soft object down her dress before being seen by millions?

The series of SP photos are just short of conclusive that she faked the pregnancy. I don't recall posting that thought lately, but I've thought so.

How many women of her physique wouldn't show a pregnancy into it's seventh month? One in a thousand? If is wasn't Sarah Palin, few people would doubt our conclusion based on the photographic evidence alone. But it is so The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome takes over. People either deny or look away to avoid the uncomfortable truth. So don't feel bad about the reaction you (and the rest of us) receive from friends. Our conclusion IS valid, even if we turn out to be wrong.

Uninitiated people will look and the photos and choice to see a pregnant woman. They suspend disbelief. But there's no such thing as a six-week pregnancy, period. Add the wild ride circumstances, and SP essentially admitting to utter recklessness and terrible judgment, and to deception in hiding her pregnancy, not telling flight attendants of her condition, not telling her our daughters about the DS, etc., etc.

A witness on the stand, when the direct evidence slants against them, would not be credible with the series of admitted deceptions.

All we lack is the forum. Lately, I've seen the town hall and birther idiots put in the hot-seat by Chris Matthews etc., and they fall apart on cross. Most people do. If I had to face those guys -- and I'll gladly go on any program -- I would withstand that challenge because I HAVE THE FACTS.

But not if I insisted on Bristol being Trig's mother. All I could say is I don't know, and SP's motive is unclear. And I can turn that question back by stating that if SP told the truth, she's admitted to being reckless. Then I ask him to produce evidence that supports that SP was Trig's mother, and they can't. Chris Matthews would have to make it up, or rely on SP's word. Then I'd have him in my pocket.

Audrey and all, I've been with this blog almost from the beginning. After reading Audrey's most recent post I am coming to the conclusion that perhaps there was only one baby - Trig. If that is the case then Levi is the father and probably Bristol is the mother. This would explain a number of points that Audrey makes.

I find it strange that we have heard nothing of Bristol or Willow since Palin resigned. Gryphen made a post that he heard there was a huge blow-up between Palin and Bristol Just before she resigned. I've often wondered if this blow-up was the reason for her resigning. (Bristol put her foot down and threatened Sarah.)

I've wondered also why Bristol doesn't sell this story and use the money to start a new life.

Keith Olberman has been pretty hard on Palin lately. He has had Shannyn Moore on his show several times. Shannyn is in Pittsburgh now for a media conference and she wrote that she will then go to New York. I believe she mentioned that she was meeting with MSNBC and CNN. All this makes me think we are about to see the lid blow and it will probably come from Keith Olberman.

Please tell "Dangerous" that I love the book. I happen to live in Clearwater and there is a Ulmerton Road. Audrey, if you want to share me e-mail address with Dangerous, I'd love to hear from him/her?

Ivyfree: I believe that Sarah Palin pretended to be pregnant with Trig instead of exposing that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant out of wedlock due to the family values/abstinence only platform that she advocated. And this was important at that time because, as I said in an earlier post, although it was August when McCain announced her as his VP choice, I believe that there were rumors and contacts being made (and unfortunately I am coming to maybe believe in a plot to use Palin as a puppet) that she might be considered for a VP post. The February 2008 issue of Vogue magazine featured two prominent women governors: Sibelius and Palin. The issue hit the stands in January, so probably was done in late November, early December. I have wondered why the staff of Vogue (photographers, writers) have not come forward about noticing whether Palin was pregnant or not during the shoot. Although all the pics that are used in the magazine are of her at a distance and in a heavy coat (obstensibly to hide the fact that she is pregnant), many pics are taken during a photo shoot and discarded, photoshopped, considered, rejected ... surely they must have seen her up close. Meanwhile, the profile of Kathleen Sibelius has her in a form-fitting red evening gown at a cocktail function. But the point of my relating this story is that the article closes by speculating that we might see either of or both of these governors on the national scene. And voila ... what happened? That very thing. And actually both of them have now entered the national picture. So ... someone, somewhere, knew and put out there that Sarah Palin might be one day tapped to be in national politics and therefore her family values platform would have to be protected. Nothing could be allowed to tarnish the reputation if that was in the works. Nothing. No daughter was more important than the possibilty of becoming POTUS one day for Ms. Palin.

Lynn @ 8:48 PM yesterday said, in part: "I wish we understood the urgency that resulted in the "wild ride". Perhaps Trig was having to be discharged from a hospital somewhere and they didn't want any more time to slip by before presenting him because he had to look newborn enough?"

If we are to surmise that Trig Palin was born in a hospital in Anchorage, not Wasilla, with a NICU that's not in the hospital in Palmer/Wasilla -- then I think we can surmise that some not-to-be-suborned-by-the-Wasilla-Mafia hospital discharge planners probably reviewed Baby Trig's length of stay and his degree of recovery from his prematurity and DS issues.

I'll bet the Palins were anxious, when they found out AFTER they'd left for Texas to attend that Governors Conference that the discharge planning procedure for Trig Palin had been started about the time they climbed onto the plane headed for Dallas! (which may have been mandated by whatever insurance coverage the Palins had chosen to cover Trig's birth and care -- the state executive branch coverage?)

For Sarah Palin, that might be enough to 1) stick around for the speech to be given, yet 2) beat a hasty return back to Alaska. I'll bet when the hotel did a linen count of the Palins' room, they found that a pillow was missing (see pic of Palin standing with other speakers on the podium at the conference)... She didn't have a chance to return it after the speech! :P

Some of the criteria that are considered essential before a high-risk preterm infant is discharged are: ability to maintain normal body temperature fully clothed in an open crib with normal ambient temperature; ability to coordinate suckle feeding, swallowing, and breathing while ingesting an adequate volume of feeding; and the ability to grow at an acceptable rate.

Parental education, implementation of primary care (i.e., takeover of care by the primary physician, not a neonatal specialist), evaluation of unresolved medical problems (for Trig: the diagnosed heart defect, the jaundice), development of a home care plan (I can guess who was the recipient of that, initials BP), identification and mobilization of surveillance and support services (ha, ha, I can see where the ex-Gov. might have asserted her Gov. authority here to dismiss this), and determination and designation of follow-up care (this too, leaning heavily on Dr. CB-J).

Great work, as usual! It's nice to get a review of all the promises ($$ first photos!) etc. and then, with a few months behind us, see how all that just kind of faded away.

Audrey wrote: "But considering just how much was riding on this for Sarah..."

This is in regards to Sarah NOT making a big deal about confirming Tripp's birth right away on 12/27, and comments about possibly Bristol wanting her privacy. Aside from it being WAY too late for that, thanks to mummy, it seems like an awful lot was riding on this for Bristol, too. Maybe it's not such a scandal for a teen to have a baby nowadays, but two babies within a year? I'd think Bristol would be just as eager as anyone to quash the 'Bristol-as-Trig's-mom' story, if she possibly could!

I have long appreciated this blogg- and enjoyed following along. Couldn't help but comment on this new developing "theory".

I never thought the Tripp looked like Levi. Now, Trigg did/does but not the "new" improved son. I would not be surprised if this was a "stand-in" baby. I would not it past the conspirators- they have already shown their arrogance and unabashed disrespect for us. deb

"Ivyfree: I believe that Sarah Palin pretended to be pregnant with Trig instead of exposing that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant out of wedlock due to the family values/abstinence only platform that she advocated."

Possibly, but that was cavalierly dismissed with the Tripp pregnancy. "She's made a mistake and now she's going to have to grow up quickly." Honestly, I live in an area of fundamentalist churches and there's nothing surprising about an unmarried daughter being pregnant. She probably got bonus points from that demographic. "See! She's just like us!" An unmarried pregnancy just isn't that big a deal anymore.

A couple of comments regarding breastfeeding. I nursed all three of my children for an extended period of time, including nursing my first child all through my second pregnancy and then tandem nursing for 17 months. Despite the continued nursing of my eldest, by about my fifth month of pregnancy, my milk had dried up. He was nursing for emotional comfort, but he wasn't getting much milk. Leaking was absolutely not a problem since there was nothing to leak.

When I was producing enough milk to leak, I would never, ever have been able to sit through hours without either nursing or pumping and have maintained my composure. Discomfort would have escalated into pain, and I would hardly have been able to move my arms.

I seriously doubt that Bristol was padded to hide leaks at the RNC. (1) She would have been a teenager (less likely to breastfeed in the first place) with a DS baby (harder to nurse). (2) If she were close to the stage of pregnancy that she was claimed to be in, she would have been unlikely to have much milk even if she were nursing.

Audrey, The question of whether Palin was pregnant or not is no longer debatable in my opinion and it is not helpful to speculate on that any longer. If it was only a matter of the photo evidence and the fact (I doubt it) that some women remain as unpregnant looking as she did then Dangerous could have a case to present. Under the circumstances, with the silly hiding behind scarves, that provided more evidence which makes it quite undisputable that she faked it.

And knowing that, plus all the evidence which showed Bristol hiding etc., I would proclaim that Bristol is the mother and that is not disputable either. Had it not been for Bristol's behaviour then the only other possibility would be for one of her other children.

To accept at least that much will be helpful in putting this whole thing back on the tracks.